"professional" Vs. "modest Religious" Dress

[changed]

There is some tension over dress codes which require "modesty"... I wonder how this tension would change if the church used a different word - instead of suggesting "modest" dress, they could instead suggest "professional" dress?  No one is offended if they were asked to wear business casual, right?  Dressing professionally is usually synonymous with dressing modestly.  


Why is it offensive to some to be asked to dress modestly, but not offensive to be asked to dress professionally?  

Edited June 10, 2014 by changed

[JLHPROF]

There is some tension over dress codes which require "modesty"... I wonder how this tension would change if the church used a different word - instead of suggesting "modest" dress, they could instead suggest "professional" dress?  No one is offended if they were asked to wear business casual, right?  Dressing professionally is usually synonymous with dressing modestly.  

Why is it offensive to some to be asked to dress modestly, but not offensive to be asked to dress professionally?  

 

Because one term focuses on a job requirement and the other term focuses on a personal ethics and morality.  Guess which one is going to offend more people?

 

Being modest is not a profession.  It is an ethical and moral choice.  Some people don't like being told they are doing something immoral, or they plain disagree with the moral standard.

[bluebell]

Modesty is also about more than just clothes (though we sometimes forget that in the church).

Modesty is a value. Professional dress isn't.

[mnn727]

There is some tension over dress codes which require "modesty"... I wonder how this tension would change if the church used a different word - instead of suggesting "modest" dress, they could instead suggest "professional" dress?  No one is offended if they were asked to wear business casual, right?  Dressing professionally is usually synonymous with dressing modestly.  

Why is it offensive to some to be asked to dress modestly, but not offensive to be asked to dress professionally?  

We have Business casual Friday's at my place of employment, you should see what some people think business casual is. <<shakes head>> I am probably the only person other than a couple of big wigs that still wear business clothes on Fridays (just without a tie)

Edited June 10, 2014 by mnn727

[Buzzard]

Also, there is little difference between church clothes and professional dress for men. The same is not always true for women. I have seen clothes on professional women in a professional setting that would have at least raised a few eyebrows at church, and I have seen women in very nice church clothes that would be considered frumpy in an office.

And often, professional dress can turn into an arms race. It can be very obvious who is wearing the $200 JC Penney suited separates vs. the $1500 Hugo Boss suit at work, but my mind has never worried about how nice of a suit is being worn at church. 

I'm not a female, but would presume that the same dynamic applies. Would you appraise a sister in your ward because she was wearing a designer suit? I promise you her boss would down at the law firm.

[cinepro]

I once had a saleswoman who worked for me who was in her 50's, but sometimes dressed (and acted) like a 20-year-old.  I was meeting her in the lobby of one of our clients before a meeting, and she showed up with her blouse unbuttoned a little too far, so you could see way too much of her bra and cleavage.  I was shocked, and on the elevator ride up, I tactfully suggested she may have "missed a button".  She looked down, checked to make sure everything was in place, and responded "No, this is fine."  It was a very awkward meeting, as the two guys we were meeting with were obviously taken back by the woman's "unprofessional" attire. 

 

So just sayin' that not everyone equates "professional" with "modest".

Edited June 10, 2014 by cinepro

[The Nehor]

We have Business casual Friday's at my place of employment, you should see what some people think business casual is. <<shakes head>> I am probably the only person other than a couple of big wigs that still wear business clothes on Fridays (just without a tie)

 

I love the loosening of business wear requirements. I usually wear a polo shirt and jeans now and sometimes outdress my boss (who is a VP). Today I wore a company T-shirt with the jeans instead.

[frank_jessop]

There is some tension over dress codes which require "modesty"... I wonder how this tension would change if the church used a different word - instead of suggesting "modest" dress, they could instead suggest "professional" dress? No one is offended if they were asked to wear business casual, right? Dressing professionally is usually synonymous with dressing modestly.

Why is it offensive to some to be asked to dress modestly, but not offensive to be asked to dress professionally?

Religious modesty - and depending on your religion determines the extent to which any particular gender must cover the most flesh - is based on belief in a god and the moral code attributed to that one and only true god.

Business "modesty" or rather professional dress, is based on the shifting sands of society deems proper. There are court rooms, outside of Utah, with could be described as "Sunday best" dress. I have read that female attorneys in some areas are told by the judges to wear skirts and not "pant suits". Just look at the history of female bathing suits in the United States, to see how acceptable standards change with time.

[toon]

Blue jeans and a t-shirt may be considered modest, but in most settings, it's not professional.

 

Perhaps it's not the fact that attire should be modest, but it's the at times emphasis on minutiae sometimes to the exclusion of what might really matters.

[toon]

Because one term focuses on a job requirement and the other term focuses on a personal ethics and morality.  Guess which one is going to offend more people?

 

Being modest is not a profession.  It is an ethical and moral choice.  Some people don't like being told they are doing something immoral, or they plain disagree with the moral standard.

 

 

I would say wearing shorts that come above the knee or having an exposed shoulder has very little to do with personal ethics and morality.  Telling people they are doing something immoral that really isn't is somethign that should be challenged.  That's not to say I have any problem with a modesty based dress code that prohibits shorts or exposed shoulders.  But let's not pretend that such a code is the embodiment of ethics and morality.

[The Nehor]

Blue jeans and a t-shirt may be considered modest, but in most settings, it's not professional.

 

Perhaps it's not the fact that attire should be modest, but it's the at times emphasis on minutiae sometimes to the exclusion of what might really matters.

 

I think our choice of clothing matters. As the Lord said we are supposed to do both the big and the little things.

[juliann]

It isn't modesty that is the problem, it is how it is taught to girls and women. When I was in YW, the YW Prez drew a torso on the board with a line marking how long their sleeves should be. Girls are being taught that they need to dress for boys. The boys are being taught that they need a few girls in church to dress modestly to control their thoughts. It's not good for anyone.

 

There was a super lesson in the Ensign the month after Elder Callister's "you get the man you dress for."  It made modesty important in its true meaning and didn't put the burden on the girls to protect the boys.

 

I don't think anyone is offended by "modesty". It is just time for the pendulum to swing back from the growing obsession with what girls wear and the judgment that is associated with the unintended message that people can evaluate a person's worthiness from their clothes. That Ensign article is a good sign.

[toon]

I think our choice of clothing matters. As the Lord said we are supposed to do both the big and the little things.

 

But is the emphasis in some circles (see the above equation with immorality) proportionate to how much it matters.

[The Nehor]

But is the emphasis in some circles (see the above equation with immorality) proportionate to how much it matters.

 

Well, it is more important that we address it proportionate to how well we are doing at obeying it. Not killing people is very important but you will not get a lot of sacrament meeting talks about it because most LDS are not struggling with that temptation much. If we get counsel on how to dress and we ignore it the counsel should be given again....and again....and again....until we do. This is not because it is the most important in the grand scheme of things. It is important because the people hearing it obviously NEED to hear it again.

 

If the Jews at the time of Jesus were eating pork I don't doubt Jesus would have given stern sermons on obeying the Law while those who were ignoring it would complain that surely there were more important matters to be discussed.

[changed]

Also, there is little difference between church clothes and professional dress for men. The same is not always true for women. ...

And often, professional dress can turn into an arms race. It can be very obvious who is wearing the $200 JC Penney suited separates vs. the $1500 Hugo Boss suit at work, but my mind has never worried about how nice of a suit is being worn at church. 

I'm not a female, but would presume that the same dynamic applies. Would you appraise a sister in your ward because she was wearing a designer suit? I promise you her boss would down at the law firm.

One of the reasons I like the term "professional dress" is that it does not single out one gender over another, but you are right, "professional dress" can be equated with "expensive".   It's a good thing I don't work at a law firm, I can understand getting a nice suit, but I don't think I could ever bring myself to pay 4 figures for one.

 

Religious modesty - and depending on your religion determines the extent to which any particular gender must cover the most flesh - is based on belief in a god and the moral code attributed to that one and only true god.

Business "modesty" or rather professional dress, is based on the shifting sands of society deems proper. There are court rooms, outside of Utah, with could be described as "Sunday best" dress. I have read that female attorneys in some areas are told by the judges to wear skirts and not "pant suits". Just look at the history of female bathing suits in the United States, to see how acceptable standards change with time.

Why can you suggest what someone at work should wear, but cannot tell, say, a high school kid what to wear?   Although there are exceptions, I think for the most part professional dress / business casual are modest.  Why do you think (for the most part) businesses want to portray a modest dress code?  

 

Blue jeans and a t-shirt may be considered modest, but in most settings, it's not professional.

 

Perhaps it's not the fact that attire should be modest, but it's the at times emphasis on minutiae sometimes to the exclusion of what might really matters.

Those are also good points.

 

It isn't modesty that is the problem, it is how it is taught to girls and women. When I was in YW, the YW Prez drew a torso on the board with a line marking how long their sleeves should be. Girls are being taught that they need to dress for boys. The boys are being taught that they need a few girls in church to dress modestly to control their thoughts. It's not good for anyone.

But, physically, it is easier for everyone to control their thoughts due to modest dress.  I don't think it does any good pretending that we are not dressing for one another, or that immodest dress doesn't evoke provocative thoughts.  That's like pretending smelling food does not make you hungry... 

[Calm]

But, physically, it is easier for everyone to control their thoughts due to modest dress. I don't think it does any good pretending that we are not dressing for one another, or that immodest dress doesn't evoke provocative thoughts. That's like pretending smelling food does not make you hungry...

Unless someone lives in a small conservative town and watches no TV or movies, they are going to be exposed in their life to lots of dress where they need to control their thoughts. Is it really a favour to them to present it as helping them control their thoughts when it does no such thing, but rather is more accurately described as giving the YM a break from having to control their thoughts by having the YW do all the work for them? Would we see that as proper when it comes to other duties of men?

I read one commenter saying her husband was in culture shock at Disneyland with all the exposed skin (assuming they went in the summer when most of the US sees exposure of shoulders and legs a practical response to warm weather). My husband told stories of some of the missionaries' reactions to the South American culture that allowed some to breastfeed in public....his response was just to remove his glasses, he saw it as his issue, not a society lost in sin as some did.

At this point I am wondering if it is for many more like the difference between lds and non over the WoW. We covenant to treat our bodies in a certain way, specifically not partaking of wine, yet it is no sin for those not given the law. I've seen plenty of young lds who do not understand this who need to learn to control their judgmental thoughts. In a society that allows a certain level of undress whether it is strapless dresses, bare chested men or even topless and casual nudity, it is not only sexual thoughts that need to be controlled but judgmental ones....so why not teach our YM and YW that we all need to learn how to proactively view others as part of God's family which implies treating them not only externally with respect and charity, but internally, and we can do that by both viewing others in positive, nonobjective ways and treating ourselves in the same manner.

Edited June 11, 2014 by calmoriah

[BCSpace]

There was a super lesson in the Ensign the month after Elder Callister's "you get the man you dress for."  It made modesty important in its true meaning and didn't put the burden on the girls to protect the boys.

 

It was indeed a super lesson.  However, implicit in the saying "you get the man you dress for" is the notion that there is indeed a burden to protect the thoughts of others including the notion that girls are to dress modestly to protect the thoughts of boys.  If that isn't believable enough, then the actual article itself should convince one:

 

Our dress affects not only our thoughts and actions but also the thoughts and actions of others. Accordingly, Paul the Apostle counseled “women [to] adorn themselves in modest apparel” (1 Timothy 2:9).

The dress of a woman has a powerful impact upon the minds and passions of men. If it is too low or too high or too tight, it may prompt improper thoughts, even in the mind of a young man who is striving to be pure.4

Men and women can look sharp and be fashionable, yet they can also be modest. Women particularly can dress modestly and in the process contribute to their own self-respect and to the moral purity of men. In the end, most women get the type of man they dress for.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2014/03/the-lords-standard-of-morality?lang=eng

 

Hopefully, no one will accuse Elder Tad R. Callister, or the Church, of advocating some sort of 'rape culture'.

[bluebell]

It was indeed a super lesson. However, implicit in the saying "you get the man you dress for" is the notion that there is indeed a burden to protect the thoughts of others including the notion that girls are to dress modestly to protect the thoughts of boys. If that isn't believable enough, then the actual article itself should convince one:

Hopefully, no one will accuse Elder Tad R. Callister, or the Church, of advocating some sort of 'rape culture'.

The issue is that boys are not taught they have the same responsibility to girls.

Why not?

[seriously honestly]

I think the emphasis put on women to dress a certain way in order to help men keep their thoughts clean should speak volumes about that kind of guy.  They should learn to control their own thoughts instead of depending on someone else to do that for them.

Edited June 12, 2014 by seriously honestly

[The Nehor]

I think the emphasis put on women to dress a certain way in order to help men keep their thoughts clean should speak volumes about that kind of guy.

 

That he has a normal sex drive?

 

I am all about men taking responsibility for ones actions and controlling ones thoughts but to say that the dress of others has no impact on our thoughts is ludicrous. By that standard watching porn would be fine for anyone but "that kind of guy".

[seriously honestly]

I never said it had no impact. What I'm saying is ridiculous is that a girl's/women's attire should be selected with the purpose of keeping a guy's thoughts in check, while little to no instruction is given to men on what they themselves should be doing to control their own thoughts.  Is a well endowed women going to peak the interest of the guys around her?  Sure, that's a given. But their minds going to the gutter (and however long their minds stay there) because she's wearing a tank top instead of a t-shirt is on them.

[EllenMaksoud]

There is some tension over dress codes which require "modesty"... I wonder how this tension would change if the church used a different word - instead of suggesting "modest" dress, they could instead suggest "professional" dress?  No one is offended if they were asked to wear business casual, right?  Dressing professionally is usually synonymous with dressing modestly.  

Why is it offensive to some to be asked to dress modestly, but not offensive to be asked to dress professionally?  

I'm getting so old that I try to please others a lot less. Pretty much I just do ME. And, perhaps most of my mores come from my Amish stepfather, and how the Muslims affected me. So, mostly I look like a Muslim woman, even in Sacrament, and no one has said anything about it more than once.

[Zakuska]

I think the emphasis put on women to dress a certain way in order to help men keep their thoughts clean should speak volumes about that kind of guy.  They should learn to control their own thoughts instead of depending on someone else to do that for them.

I agree they should learn.

 

 

I never said it had no impact. What I'm saying is ridiculous is that a girl's/women's attire should be selected with the purpose of keeping a guy's thoughts in check, while little to no instruction is given to men on what they themselves should be doing to control their own thoughts.  Is a well endowed women going to peak the interest of the guys around her?  Sure, that's a given. But their minds going to the gutter (and however long their minds stay there) because she's wearing a tank top instead of a t-shirt is on them.

 

Paul has a few words to say on this subject...

 

 

• 1 Corinthians 8:13

  13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

So women should ablidge men "like that" and help by dressing Modestly. 

Edited June 12, 2014 by Zakuska

[seriously honestly]

That verse has nothing to do with clothing.  That verse is talking about no offending the conscience of new believers in Christ who still might have reservations about eating something was forbidden in their previous religious belief.  

[Zakuska]

That verse has nothing to do with clothing.  That verse is talking about no offending the conscience of new believers in Christ who still might have reservations about eating something was forbidden in their previous religious belief.  

Correct. It doesn't have anything to do with clothing.

 

But the underlying teaching is that if something I feel free to do makes another person sin then I'd better not do that something.

 

Would you agree or disagree?

Edited June 12, 2014 by Zakuska